[Oxzzlvpg]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Not only did they break the law, when they felt they needed to, but also did they stick to it in the beginning only due to the fact, that the US didnt like unrestritcted sub-warfare and threatened to join the allies. In other words: The fact that unrestricted warfare was forbidden by international law never really was an issue for the decicion wether to use it or not. Imagine, in a german war council somebody had opposed unrestricted sub-warfare (a potential war-winner) ONLY on the basis of it being illegal - it would have been his last statement in this council probably... OK, I basically agree, though I think some pointed indeed to the problem with attacking neutral ships, but I don't remember the specifics right now. However I'd point to another consideration. IMO there is as well an element of reciprocity here - the fact that there was a harsh naval blockade (not only about directly war-important stuff, but also for example regarding food) established against Germany very early in the war. This was generally 'legal' but similar to the results of the sub warfare later it affected mainly non-combattants (though surely not those of neutral states).

Sub warfare as a reaction and a tool to hurt the enemy economy in similar ways was rather a result of inequality IMO: the UK could only establish the blockade because the Royal Navy was vastly superior at that time. From the other side the size of the German navy didn't allow for a similar 'legal' step against the UK, the subs allowed for an escalation that promised similar effects on the UK's economy, but not on the basis of equality, but just the opposite. One could ask if any side had tried a blockade at all if both had equal surface forces, but of course that remains open.

(In this, i find a tendency, that the vanquished nation is, after the war, the villian not only do to ´the winners write the history´, but also due to the fact, that the weaker side is more likely to be in need to break rules first, in order to retain some hope for victory during the war - btw for the same reason terrorists are always ´bad´) Well, I have never been particularly happy with the phrase of the winners writing history. I certainly agree with it when the winner is 'setting the terms' after the war (so in the sense of 'making history', since the winner is mostly able to dictate what happens next). Otoh it is often not the case that the winners' view on the war, who the 'bad guy' was etc becomes automatically the universally accepted view or the mainstream view in historiography from there on. Otherwise we wouldn't still debate such issues for many wars today....But that just as an aside

I guess what i am aiming at, is not so much atrocities per se, but rather the neglectance of any rules, be they common sense of civilized people or formulated by convention. If one side needs to break a rule, any rule, in order to win (or avoid) a prolonged and costly war, it will do so. In that case, using this weapon despite it being forbidden can even yield an additional advantage - that of surprise. And it can even be argued that breaking the international law in order to serve and to protect its own people would even be the duty of the government of the nation in question.

I mean, honestly, if i was the pres of a country that felt seriously threatened by some big neighbour, and the international community said: ´we condemn landmines´, i´d say ´yeah, right so do we´ and ´hey mr. armaments-minister, we need 5 million more of those ´immobile, pressure-sensitve explosive devices´ (IPSEDs - not Landmines... those are condemned)´... As for things like debates about landmines or cluster bombs - IMO this is rather a sign that there are more attempts to regulate war. Nobody cared much about land or seamines being used on large scale back in WWI or WWII, it simply wasn't 'on the radar' so to speak. Also some things that were earlier seen as justified under the rules of war would be totally unacceptable today (for example killing people in retaliation for partisan attacks was actually seen as justified for quite some time since it was thought as a means to limit 'irregular' war).

About rules: I'd agree that there's often a certain 'drive' to break more or even any rules, but if it's actually done depends on a number of factors, and isn't just an automatism of war. And we see also contrary effects: the French in Algeria as well as the US in Vietnam had to deal with increasing domestic criticism and conflict about the ways in which they conducted war in those countries or their general presence there, and many say this was in the end a main factor in ending those wars, not primarily the purely military situation.

In the last paragraph you do give the reasons, why some rules are respected in some situations: Because i fear my enemy might do the same, if i do it first. But that has hardly anything to do with ´law´ or ´legality´ - it is simply avoiding an unneccessary side-step to another branch of the escalation ladder, which would not benefit my side to any meaningful extent (if i let my POWs starve, i might save some food, but risk embargos or even DOWs by third countries, in addition to giving the other side the opportunity to do the same without such punishment). Respecting a law means to do what i do not desire to do, or not to do, what i would like to do. If i dont do, what i dont want to do anyways, it can hardly be called obeying a law. But if i act against the law, as soon as i think it yields an advantage for my side, and if that is common practice, then the law is useless, meaningless, not worth the paper its been written on... I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here: first I'd say the primary thing is if 'the rules' are followed at all. There are always a number of reasons to follow a rule, it's hardly ever the pure view that a rule is 'good' or 'ethical'. In fact quite often 'good' here is closely related to 'giving a benefit' or 'avoiding harm' etc.

People don't crossing the streets when there's a red light showing probably aren't all thinking that the red light has to be respected just because it's written down that you stop then, but because it actually avoids harm to themselves (for example the possibility of being overrun by cars). I would *not* say this is disrespect for the rule, just because they think on possible bad consequences for themselves and act accordingly. It's actually why the rule was established that way.

In that way I see nothing wrong with respecting the Geneva Conventions because of considerations regarding enemy reactions towards violations of them. Overall I'd say that the general call for respecting rules of warfare puts some limits on those who agree to it (which today at least theoretically all states do): you'll blow your credibility totally if you still act against this, which can lead to international consequences, and even if you can get away with it, you still can run into domestic problems. Usually sides in war claim their causes are justified, but when they openly violate commonly acknowledged principles it's difficult to maintain that position, and they can still lose politically which becomes increasingly important IMO.